A FEMINIST OVERVIEW OF PORNOGRAPHY,
ENDING IN A DEFENSE THEREOF

A RESPONSE

"Pornography benefits women, both
personally and politically." This sentence opens my book XXX: A
Woman's Right to Pornography, and it constitutes a more extreme
defense of pornography than most feminists are comfortable with. I arrive
at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex workers.

In order for this sentence to
be true, my mother and millions of other Christian women like her must
have benefited in some way from pornography. This strikes me as quite a
stretch. Millions of other women will likely also be incredulous.
McElroy, a libertarian, would like to think that
any government that has legalized pornography is also a government that
favors liberty in other areas, and has thereby unleashed the powers of
productivity and creativity, which in turn have benefited women.
I doubt that this is the case in the real world.
Government is power; government is organized violence. If it exists it is
advancing someone's agenda. If it is advancing the agenda of the
pornographers, it is not advancing the agenda of Christian capitalist
civilization. The Christian world of Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations),
a world of morality and the protestant work ethic, is not the world of
pornography. In reality, a pornographic world does not benefit women.

Overview of Feminist Positions on Pornography

Feminist positions on pornography
currently break down into three rough categories. The most common one
-- at least, in academia -- is that pornography is an expression of male
culture through which women are commodified and exploited. The liberal
position combines a respect for free speech with the principle 'a
woman's body, a woman's right' to produce a defense of pornography along
the lines of, 'I don't approve of it, but everyone has the right to
consume or produce words and images'. A true defense of pornography
arises from feminists who have been labeled 'pro-sex', and who argue that
porn has benefits for women.

This article does not really
deal with non-feminist positions on pornography.

Little dialogue occurs between the three
positions. Anti-pornography feminists treat women who disagree as either
brain-washed dupes of patriarchy or as apologists for pornographers. In
the anthology Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism (1990),
editor Dorchen Leidholdt claims that feminists who believe women make
their own choices about pornography are spreading 'a felicitous lie'
(p.131). In the same work, Sheila Jeffreys argues that 'pro-sex' feminists
are 'eroticizing dominance and subordination.' Wendy Stock accuses free
speech feminists of identifying with their oppressors 'much
like...concentration camp prisoners with their jailors' (p.150). Andrea
Dworkin accuses them of running a 'sex protection racket' (p.136) and
maintains that no one who defends pornography can be a feminist.

The liberal feminists who are personally
uncomfortable with pornography tend to be intimidated into silence. Those
who continue to speak out, like ACLU President Nadine Strossen [Defending
Pornography] are ignored: for example, Catharine MacKinnon has
repeatedly refused to share a stage with Strossen or any woman who defends
porn. 'Pro-sex' feminists -- many of whom are current or ex sex workers --
often respond with anger, rather than arguments.

Peeling back the emotions, what are the
substantive questions raised by each feminist perspective?

Anti-Porn Feminism:

Page Mellish of Feminists Fighting
Pornography has declared, "There's no feminist issue that isn't
rooted in the porn problem." In her book Only Words, MacKinnon denies
that pornography consists of words and images, both which would be
protected by the First Amendment. She considers pornography -- in and of
itself -- to be an act of sexual violence. Why is pornography viewed as
both the core issue of modern feminism and an inherent act of violence?
The answer lies in radical feminist ideology, which Christina Hoff Sommers
calls 'gender feminism'.

It is clear that the Founding
Fathers would not have deemed pornography protected by the First
Amendment.

Gender feminism looks at history and sees
an uninterrupted oppression of women by men than spans cultural barriers.
To them, the only feasible explanation is that men and women are separate
and antagonistic classes, whose interests necessarily conflict. Male
interests are expressed through and maintained by a capitalistic structure
known as 'patriarchy'.

If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination
of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary
process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of
males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.

Perhaps this confirmed the question Interviewer Susan Bridle had in
mind when she scheduled the interview:

I was also very curious to find out if she really believed, as
it seemed from her books, that the cause of every possible problem in
this world, both inner and outer, is the evil of patriarchy, or, in
other words, men.

The root of the antagonism is so deep that
it lies in male biology itself. For example, in the watershed book Against
Our Will, Susan Brownmiller traces the inevitability of rape back to
Neanderthal times when men began to use their penises as weapons.
Brownmiller writes: "From prehistoric times to the present, I
believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less
than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women
in a state of fear." [Emphasis in original.] How she acquired this
knowledge of prehistoric sex is not known.

There is a strong lesbian
element in some anti-pornography forces:

Dworkin reels from the claims made
by her opponents that she equates all heterosexual sex with rape,
but in doing so she is merely playing semantic games. Her work is
infused with the view that women are harmed by heterosexual sex,
that they can't really consent to such sex and that heterosexual sex
should be (must be) transcended to move beyond the war against women
-- after all this is the same Dworkin who once wrote that
"unambiguous conventional heterosexual behavior is the worst
betrayal or our common humanity."

As Dworkin sums up this view, "Physically the woman in
intercourse is a space invaded, a literal territory occupied
literally; occupied even if there has been no resistance; even if
the occupied person said, 'Yes, please, yes, hurry, yes,
more.'"

MacKinnon has made similar statements, likening women who dare to
disagree with her to "house niggers who side with
masters."

Handing over power of government censorship to lesbians could be a disaster for family-values.
Yet this could be the result of handing over power to the State to censor
"pornography."

Another tenet of gender oppression is that
sex is a social construct. Radical feminists reject what they call 'sexual
essentialism' -- the notion that sex is a natural force based on biology
which inclines women toward natural tendencies, such as motherhood. Even
deeply felt sexual preferences, such as heterosexuality, are not
biological. They spring from ideology.

Men construct women's sexuality through
the words and images of society, which the French philosopher Foucault
called the 'texts' of society. After such construction, men commercialize
women's sexuality and market it back to her in the form of pornography. In
other words, through porn man defines woman sexually -- a definition which
determines every aspect of her role in society. To end the oppression,
patriarchy and its texts must be destroyed.

Liberal Feminists:

Liberal feminism is a continuation of 60s
feminism which called for equality with men, who were not inherent
oppressors so much as recalcitrant partners to be enlightened. Equality
did not mean destroying the current system, but reforming it through such
measures as affirmative action. The liberal principle 'a woman's body, a
woman's right' underlay arguments ranging from abortion rights to
lifestyle freedoms like lesbianism. The stress was upon the act of
choosing, rather than upon the content of any choice.

Liberal feminists share the general
liberal bias toward free speech, but they are in flux on pornography. Some
liberal organizations like Feminists
for Free Expression [FFE] have consistently opposed censorship in any
form. Some liberal feminists like Sallie Tisdale [Talk Dirty to Me]
have staunchly defended sexual freedom. But many liberal feminists
commonly reason as follows: 'as a woman I am appalled by Playboy...but as
a writer I understand the need for free expression.'

Such arguments are not pro-pornography.
They are anti-censorship ones based on several grounds, including: great
works of art and literature would be banned; the First Amendment would be
breached; political expression would be suppressed; and, a creative
culture requires freedom of speech.

Other liberal feminists, who have accepted
many of the ideological assumptions of the anti-porn position, seem
willing to sacrifice free speech for the greater good of protecting women.
For example, they also condemn the free market for commercializing women
as 'body parts', which demeans women. In "A Capital Idea", an
essay defending pornography, which sometimes seems to be an attack, Lisa
Steel comments:

"Sexist representation of women...is
all part of the same system that, in the service of profits, reduces
society to 'consumer groups'. And marketing is every bit as conservative
as the military...we pay dearly for the 'rights' of a few to make profits
from the rest of us."

Such muddled and ambivalent 'defenses'
often offend the sex workers they are intended to protect.

Pro-Sex Feminism:

Over the past decade, a growing number of
feminists -- labeled 'pro-sex' -- have defended a woman's choice to
participate in and to consume pornography. Some of these women, such as
Nina Hartley, are current or ex sex workers who know first-hand that
posing for pornography is an uncoerced choice which can be enriching.
Pro-sex feminists retain a consistent interpretation of the principle 'a
woman's body, a woman's right' and insist that every peaceful choice a
woman makes with her own body must be accorded full legal protection, if
not respect.

It may be true that posing
for pornography can be "uncoerced." Whether or not it is
"enriching" is a conclusion of moral reasoning, based on
religious principles. "Full legal protection" means that a woman
who chooses to "enrich" herself by prostituting her body should
not be locked up in prison with a carjacker or other violent felon. Fair
enough. But nobody should be required to "respect" this choice.
It is not a respectable choice. People should be free to use non-political
power to shame those who make such "uncoerced" choices.

Pro-sex arguments sometimes seem to
overlap with liberal feminist ones. For example, both express concern over
who will act as censor because subjective words, such as 'degrading', will
be interpreted to mean whatever the censor wishes.

The state that banned Margaret Sanger
because she used the words 'syphilis' and 'gonorrhea' is no different, in
principle, than the one that interprets obscenity today. There will be no
protection even for the classics of feminism, such as Our Bodies,
Ourselves, which provided a generation women with the first explicit
view of their own biology. Inevitably, censorship will be used against the
least popular views, against the weakest members of society...including
feminists and lesbians. When the Canadian Supreme Court decided (1992) to
protect women by restricting the importation of pornography, one of the
first victims was a lesbian/gay bookstore named Glad Day Bookstore --
which had been on a police 'hit list'. Among the books seized by Canadian
customs were two books by Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing
Women and Women Hating. Such an event should not have surprised
Dworkin who declared in Take Back the Night, "There is not a
feminist alive who could possibly look to the male legal system for real
protection from the systematized sadism of men." (p.257)

On the dangers of censoring pornography,
pro-sex and liberal feminists often agree. On the possible benefits of
pornography to women, they part company. (Such benefits are explored at
the conclusion of this article.)

Critique of Anti-Porn Feminism

The specific accusations hurled at
pornography include

1. Pornography degrades women;
2. Pornography leads directly to violence against women.
3. Pornography is violence against women, in that:
a. women are physically coerced into pornography;
b. women involved in the production of pornography are so psychologically
damaged by patriarchy that they are incapable of giving informed or 'real'
consent;

Do these accusations stand up under
examination?

1. Pornography is Degrading to Women.

'Degrading' is a subjective term. I find
commercials in which women become orgasmic over soapsuds to be
tremendously degrading. The bottom line is that every woman has the right
to define what is degrading and liberating for herself.

The assumed degradation is often linked to
the 'objectification' of women: that is, porn converts them into sexual
objects. What does this mean? If taken literally, it means nothing because
objects don't have sexuality; only beings do. But to say that porn
portrays women as 'sexual beings' makes for poor rhetoric. Usually, the
term 'sex objects' means showing women as 'body parts', reducing them to
physical objects. What is wrong with this? Women are as much their bodies
as they are their minds or souls. No one gets upset if you present women
as 'brains' or as 'spiritual beings'. If I concentrated on a woman's sense
of humor to the exclusion of her other characteristics, is this degrading?
Why is it degrading to focus on her sexuality?

Because sex belongs within
marriage, not outside it.

2. Pornography Leads to Violence
against Women.

A cause-and-effect relationship is drawn
between men viewing pornography and men attacking women, especially in the
form of rape. But studies and experts disagree as to whether any
relationship exists between pornography and violence, between images and
behavior. Even the pro-censorship Meese Commission Report admitted that
the data connecting pornography to violence was unreliable.

Other studies, such as the one prepared by
feminist Thelma McCormick (1983) for the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force
on Violence Against Women, find no pattern to connect porn and sex crimes.
Incredibly, the Task Force suppressed the study and reassigned the project
to a pro-censorship male, who returned the 'correct' results. His study
was published.

What of real world feedback? In Japan,
where pornography depicting graphic and brutal violence is widely
available, rape is much lower per capita than in the United States, where
violence in porn is severely restricted.

3. Pornography is Violence

a. Women are coerced into pornography.

Not one woman of the dozens of woman in
porn with whom I spoke reported being coerced. Not one knew of a woman who
had been. Nevertheless, I do not dismiss reports of violence: every
industry has its abuses. And anyone who uses force or threats to make a
woman perform should be charged with kidnapping, assault, and/or rape. Any
pictures or film should be confiscated and burned, because no one has the
right to benefit from the proceeds of a crime.

b. Women who Pose for Porn are so
Traumatized by Patriarchy They Cannot Give Real Consent.

Although women in pornography appear to be
willing, anti-porn feminists know that no psychologically healthy woman
would agree to the degradation of pornography. Therefore, if agreement
seems to be present, it is because the women have 'fallen in love with
their own oppression' and must be rescued from themselves.

A common emotional theme in the porn
actresses I have interviewed is a love of exhibitionism. Yet if such a
woman declares her enjoyment in flaunting her body, anti-porn feminists
claim she is not merely a unique human being who reacts from a different
background or personality. She is psychologically damaged and no longer
responsible for her actions. In essence, this is a denial of a woman's
right to choose anything outside the narrow corridor of choices offered by
political/sexual correctness. The right to choose hinges on the right to
make a 'wrong' choice, just as freedom of religion entails the right to be
an atheist. After all, no one will prevent a woman from doing what they
think she should do.

A Pro-Sex Defense of Pornography

As a 'pro-sex' feminist, I contend:
Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically. It benefits
them personally in several ways:

1. It provides sexual information on at
least three levels:

a. it gives a panoramic view of the
world's sexual possibilities. This is true even of basic sexual
information such as masturbation, which seems to come less naturally to
women than to men. It is not uncommon for women to reach adulthood without
knowing how to give themselves pleasure.

b. it allows women to 'safely'
experience sexual alternatives and satisfy a healthy sexual curiosity. The
world is a dangerous place. By contrast, pornography can be a source of
solitary enlightenment. Pornography allows women to experiment in the
privacy of their own bedrooms, on a television set that can be turned off
whenever she has had enough.

c. it provides a different form of
information than textbooks or discussion. It offers the emotional
information that comes only from experiencing something either directly or
vicariously. It provides us with a sense how it would 'feel' to do
something.

2. Pornography strips away the
emotional confusion that so often surrounds real world sex. Pornography
allows women to enjoy scenes and situations that would be anathema to them
in real life. Take, for example, one of the most common fantasies reported
by women -- the fantasy of 'being taken', of being raped. The first thing
to understand is that a rape fantasy does not represent a desire for the
real thing. It is a fantasy. The woman is in control of the smallest
detail of every act.

Why would a healthy woman daydream about
being raped?

There are dozens of reasons. Perhaps by
losing control, she also sheds all sense of responsibility for and guilt
over sex. Perhaps it is the exact opposite of the polite, gentle sex she
has now. Perhaps it is flattering to imagine a particular man being so
overwhelmed by her that he must have her. Perhaps she is curious. Perhaps
she has some masochistic feelings that are vented through the fantasy. Is
it better to bottle them up?

Sometimes it's necessary to
"unbottle" a feeling, examine it, find out that it's toxic, and
dispose of it promptly, washing out the container to prevent
contamination. The desire to be raped
represents ignorance at best, and likely indicates the presence of
numerous emotional and moral toxins. While government censorship may not
be the answer, self-examination and moral maturity are vital.

3. Pornography breaks cultural and
political stereotypes, so that each woman can interpret sex for herself. Anti-feminists
tell women to be ashamed of their appetites and urges. Pornography tells
them to accept and enjoy them. Pornography provides reassurance and
eliminates shame. It says to women 'you are not alone in your fantasies
and deepest darkest desires. Right there, on the screen are others who
feel the same urges and are so confident that they flaunt them.'

It is this fact that
allows thousands of child molesters to convince their young prey that it
is "OK."

4. Pornography can be good therapy. Pornography
provides a sexual outlet for those who -- for whatever reason -- have no
sexual partner. Perhaps they are away from home, recently widowed,
isolated because of infirmity. Perhaps they simply choose to be alone.
Sometimes, masturbation and vicarious sex are the only alternatives to
celibacy. Couples also use pornography to enhance their relationship.
Sometimes they do so on their own, watching videos and exploring their
reactions together. Sometimes, the couples go to a sex therapist who
advises them to use pornography as a way of opening up communication on
sex. By sharing pornography, the couples are able to experience variety in
their sex lives without having to commit adultery.

In the Sermon
on the Mount, Jesus made clear that discontent with one's marital
status does not legitimize vicarious sex. Pornography is almost always
vicarious adultery, and leads the viewer to destruction.

Pornography benefits women politically in
many ways, including the following:

1. Historically, pornography and
feminism have been fellow travelers and natural allies. Both have
risen and flourished during the same periods of sexual freedom; both have
been attacked by the same political forces, usually conservatives. Laws
directed against pornography or obscenity, such as the Comstock Law in the
late 1880's, have always been used to hinder women's rights, such as birth
control. Although it is not possible to draw a cause-and-effect
relationship between the rise of pornography and that of feminism, they
both demand the same social conditions -- namely, sexual freedom.

When men moved away from a
Biblical vision of a prosperous moral capitalism, feminists demanded equal
rights to irresponsibility and political power. Barbara Berg (The Remembered Gate: Origins of American Feminism. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1978) has chronicled the movement away from
the Vine & Fig Tree
society. Secular men boxed women into a doll-house life symbolic of the
virtues men were abandoning. Some women wanted to follow the men into
fascism and immorality. Others became morally and socially active outside
an increasingly-irrelevant home.

2. Pornography is free speech applied
to the sexual realm. Freedom of speech is the ally of those who seek
change: it is the enemy of those who seek to maintain control.
Pornography, along with all other forms of sexual heresy, such as
homosexuality, should have the same legal protection as political heresy.
This protection is especially important to women, whose sexuality has been
controlled by censorship through the centuries.

Pornography and homosexuality
destroy social order, but the violence of the State is not the proper tool
to counter these destructive changes.

3. Viewing pornography may well have a
cathartic effect on men who have violent urges toward women. If this
is true, restricting pornography removes a protective barrier between
women and abuse.

Discipline, Work and
Responsibility are better ways to channel male hormones and violent
energy.

4. Legitimizing pornography would
protect women sex workers, who are stigmatized by our society.
Anti-pornography feminists are actually undermining the safety of sex
workers when they treat them as 'indoctrinated women'. Dr. Leonore Tiefer,
a professor of psychology observed in her essay "On Censorship and
Women":

"These women have appealed to feminists for support, not
rejection...Sex industry workers, like all women, are striving for
economic survival and a decent life, and if feminism means anything it
means sisterhood and solidarity with these women."

The market for women
"sex workers" is a reflection of the men George Gilder described
as "Naked Nomads." These are not the men that serve as engines
of productivity, creativity, or morality. Neither "sex workers"
nor sex workees elevate society.

The law cannot eliminate pornography, any
more than it has been able to stamp out prostitution. But making
pornography illegal will further alienate and endanger women sex workers.

The Purpose of Law

The porn debate is underscored by two
fundamentally antagonistic views of the purpose of law in society.

The first view, to which pro-sex feminists
subscribe, is that law should protect choice. 'A woman's body, a woman's
right' applies to every peaceful activity a woman chooses to engage in.
The law should come into play only when a woman initiates force or has
force initiated against her. The second view, to which both conservatives
and anti-porn feminists subscribe, is that law should protect virtue. Law
should enforce proper behavior. It should come into play whenever there
has been a breach of public morality, or a breach of 'women's class
interests.'

This is old whine in new battles. The
issue at stake in pornography debate is nothing less than the age-old
conflict between individual freedom and social control.